dbTalk Databases Forums  

SQL Server Multiple-Instance Cluster

microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering


Discuss SQL Server Multiple-Instance Cluster in the microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering forum.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old   
Earl Spooner
 
Posts: n/a

Default SQL Server Multiple-Instance Cluster - 04-13-2004 , 12:12 PM






I am planning on a two node cluster with multiple
instances. I will have two databases and two separate
applications will be going against them. I want 'APP 1'
to go against 'DB 1' on 'NODE 1' and failover to 'NODE
2'. I want 'APP 2' to go against 'DB 2' on 'NODE 2' and
failover to 'NODE 1'.

Is this possible? Does that mean that I will have two
virtual servers?
Will I have one default instance and one named instance on
each node?



Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old   
Geoff N. Hiten
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL Server Multiple-Instance Cluster - 04-13-2004 , 12:35 PM






Comments Inline

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com

I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org

"Earl Spooner" <anonymous (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Quote:
I am planning on a two node cluster with multiple
instances. I will have two databases and two separate
applications will be going against them. I want 'APP 1'
to go against 'DB 1' on 'NODE 1' and failover to 'NODE
2'. I want 'APP 2' to go against 'DB 2' on 'NODE 2' and
failover to 'NODE 1'.

Is this possible? Does that mean that I will have two
virtual servers?
Yes, and Yes.

Quote:
Will I have one default instance and one named instance on
each node?
You choose. I prefer to make all clustered instances of SQL named
instances. The instances are per cluster, not per node so you can only have
one default instance on a cluster. Each instance can live on one host node
at any given moment. You can choose the failover order. The outside world
sees each instance as a named instance of a SQL server.
Quote:




Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old   
ES
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL Server Multiple-Instance Cluster - 04-13-2004 , 01:02 PM



Thanks so much on the quick reply

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old   
Patricia B.
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL Server Multiple-Instance Cluster - 04-15-2004 , 03:04 PM



Hi Geoff,

Let me get this right. It is impossible to have an active/passive
cluster with, for example, 16 virtual servers without naming the
instance on each one of them, except one (the default). Is that right
? thank you

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA (AT) Careerbuilder (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
Comments Inline

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com

I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org

"Earl Spooner" <anonymous (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1776b01c4217a$86fde750$a001280a (AT) phx (DOT) gbl...
I am planning on a two node cluster with multiple
instances. I will have two databases and two separate
applications will be going against them. I want 'APP 1'
to go against 'DB 1' on 'NODE 1' and failover to 'NODE
2'. I want 'APP 2' to go against 'DB 2' on 'NODE 2' and
failover to 'NODE 1'.

Is this possible? Does that mean that I will have two
virtual servers?
Yes, and Yes.

Will I have one default instance and one named instance on
each node?
You choose. I prefer to make all clustered instances of SQL named
instances. The instances are per cluster, not per node so you can only have
one default instance on a cluster. Each instance can live on one host node
at any given moment. You can choose the failover order. The outside world
sees each instance as a named instance of a SQL server.



Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old   
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL Server Multiple-Instance Cluster - 04-15-2004 , 03:17 PM



Correct, the term is Named Instance

Cheers,

Rod

"Patricia B." <patricia_bouisset (AT) homedepot (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
Hi Geoff,

Let me get this right. It is impossible to have an active/passive
cluster with, for example, 16 virtual servers without naming the
instance on each one of them, except one (the default). Is that right
? thank you

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA (AT) Careerbuilder (DOT) com> wrote

Comments Inline

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com

I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org

"Earl Spooner" <anonymous (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1776b01c4217a$86fde750$a001280a (AT) phx (DOT) gbl...
I am planning on a two node cluster with multiple
instances. I will have two databases and two separate
applications will be going against them. I want 'APP 1'
to go against 'DB 1' on 'NODE 1' and failover to 'NODE
2'. I want 'APP 2' to go against 'DB 2' on 'NODE 2' and
failover to 'NODE 1'.

Is this possible? Does that mean that I will have two
virtual servers?
Yes, and Yes.

Will I have one default instance and one named instance on
each node?
You choose. I prefer to make all clustered instances of SQL named
instances. The instances are per cluster, not per node so you can only
have
one default instance on a cluster. Each instance can live on one host
node
at any given moment. You can choose the failover order. The outside
world
sees each instance as a named instance of a SQL server.





Reply With Quote
Reply




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.